Score another one for the Democrats. They just keep getting more and more out of touch everyday.
OK. Since ER tends to get his panties in a twist if I copy and paste something off his blog without giving him proper credit, I will go ahead and inform you I got this from the comments section of a blogpost on ER's blog, entitled, "ER Review: Brokeback Mountain".
(Perhaps the "panties in a twist" reference isn't exactly appropriate, given the subject matter):
drlobojo says: Most of the people who would be offended by "the thought of" Brokeback Mountain, haven't got much choice but to shop at Wal-Mart. Not much chance a boy-cott would work, in fact it might increase sales among the curious.
(I put that quote in pink for obvious reasons)
Here is my response to that:
Drlobojo, I find that snooty condescending attitude highly offensive. Insinuating that dumb ol' trailer trash people are the only ones that would be offended by perversion is an elitist attitude of the worst kind.
This is why your intellectual snobbery doesn't get any credibility over at my place, and with actual intelligent people everywhere.
A few final observations: I can't help but notice that so often it is the Democrats, the so-called party of compassion for the everyday working man, like those who live in trailer parks and shop at Walmart, etc, is the same party that makes such ridiculous and pretentiously elitist statements such as the above. If I were a Democrat who shops at Walmart, and heard that, I'd join the Republicans.
Simply outrageous.
Drlobojo, don't ever tell me your party cares about the rank and file Americans. You only care about the ones that scrape and bow and genuflect to your "superior intellect and education". And then only if they agree with your overinflated opinion of yourself.
Please.
My God. I keep re-reading that statement and the more I read it the angrier I get. What a pompous ass!
OK. What are your thoughts?
Hey, I saw this picture of Rep. Cynthia McKinney and I noticed a striking resemblance to a character we all know and love! How can you stay angry at this woman?
23 comments:
Here's the rest of the story, y'all:
Drlobojo said:
Another pearl before a swine you say.
Actually Mark I was refering to the fact that in rural America Wal-Mart is not the store of choice it is the only choice for a store. Rural America is one of the main bastions of orthodox evangelicals, who would be the ones most "offended by the thought of" (because they won't actually see it)Brokeback Mountain. Thus in that they have to shop at Wal-Mart that being the only store arround, it is unlikely that they will boycott Wal-Mart because they are selling the DVD (which will probably go down to the $5 bin soon anyway).
Mark, you take offense as quick as you give it, and if you can't find it you invite it. If it won't come on its own, then you create it.
Keep it up and all your dreams will come true.
9:34 PM
Mark said ...
"Actually Mark I was refering to the fact that in rural America Wal-Mart is not the store of choice it is the only choice for a store."
Actually, maybe in your little corner of the world, there aren't any other stores except Walmart, but even in the most sparsely populated areas of the country, the people have cars. They can drive to the big city and go to Dillards.
Your explanation doesn't hold water. I believe I was right in my original assessment.
8:43 AM
Erudite Redneck said...
Mark, western Oklahoma empties into the Wal-Mart Supercenters in the Oklahoma City metro area on the weekend. As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. ...
Drlobojo, this is an amazing condensation of Mark! Bravo!
"Mark, you take offense as quick as you give it, and if you can't find it you invite it. If it won't come on its own, then you create it."
BTW, good of you, Mark, to give credit where's it's due. Thanks.
ER, I posted this before I read drlobojo's explanation of his comments. But having read so many of his positional comments in the past, I still assert he just showed his true self in the original comment. His whitewashing of what he said doesn't wash.
"western Oklahoma empties into the Wal-Mart Supercenters in the Oklahoma City metro area on the weekend. As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. ..."
ER, I live in a rural area. The population of this town is 450. I have a car! Within a mile of the Walmart Supercenter here is Borders books, (same shopping center) Circuit City, Penny's Sears, Waldenbooks, K-Mart, Target, Officemax, etc. I could go on and on. So what part of what I said do I not have a clue?
And then let's not forget he topped off this insult to my intelligence by suggesting that his comment wasn't offensive and that I made it all up. It was clearly an insult to the working man Americans. He just got caught with his snob showing.
Mark, you're wrong. You're imposing your OWN biases, warped my your inflated sense of having been wronged by others, onto what he wrote.
Nope. You refuse to take people at their word, and you insist that they actually mean what YOU say!
There's are plenty of words for what he insulted in you, but intelligence ain't one of 'em.
I don't like Wal Mart because every time I go there, I spend more than I intend... but I say the same things about Home Depot, Lowe's and Target. I like all of them, just wish my bank account was bigger. And no, I don't live in a trailer. My wife is too important to me than that. I would live there if I thought it would help us financially... but she won't... so there you have it...
As for McKinney, she looks more like Saddam after they pulled him from his rat hole...
OK guys, get along even though you disagree. There will be little agreement ever because both of you are coming from fundamentally different points of view. Just accept it... take a deep breath and move on...
Blessings
Timothy
Washington County MD, where Mark lives, had a populatio of about 131,000 in 2000.
In 2000, in Oklahoma, the bottom 24 counties' -- TWENTY-FOUR -- populations added up to that.
There are only FOUR counties in Oklahoma with as much population as Washington County, MD:
Oklahoma, Tulsa and Cleveland (suburb of OKC). Marks "rural county" would be the fourth most populous in Oklahoma, just ahead of Comanche (Lawton, city of about 90,000 plus Fort Sill).
Maryland has no "rural areas" by Oklahoma standards.
So ER, you agree with drlobojo's position that the majority of rural dwellers are unsophisticated, uneducated, Bible thumping, bigots, who are not permitted to believe that butt bunping is perversion. The flaw in your argument is that most rural peole are very sophisticated farmer millionaires with oodles of education, especially in the agriculture field. And they have the capacity to think for themselves rather than swallowing every Liberal politically correct Godless concept that the intellectual elites try to force down their throats. Like the ridiculous notion that homosexuality is any way normal.
Well, regardless of your personal feelings here, homosexuality among animals and humans is far from uncommon, so it's hard to tag it as abnormal.
The words you choose, like 'perversion', carry a heavy emotional weight, but don't change the fact that 'normal' is exactly what homosexuality is for people who are born that way, or those who choose it (there's both).
And to say so isn't to forward some sort of agenda, either: no one is ever going to make you gay against your will. However, the people being discussed here have rights like anyone, and they are often ignored, etc. etc.
Still haven't seen the movie. I often wear a cowboy hat and a sheepherder's jacket in public, and I just don't want anyone getting the wrong idea. :)
Well, since I don't feel any sting from being accused of snobbery, let me offer this unabashed support for the elitist position you thought DrL promoted. Just as the word "nigger" became taboo among the white upper classes long before working class and southern rural whites, so is the loud insistence that homosexuality is a "perversion" no longer socially acceptable. We'll leave aside the interesting argument in either case whether the new mores actually mean the end of the attitudes implied.
Listen to how the extremely conservative - but not populist Coulterish Know-Nothing - Charles Krauthammer writes: As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it is a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. - and this is in the course of an article decrying gay-marriage-by-judicial-fiat.
That's the way we talk around here, even when we disagree (and I actually don't, in this case.) It's a class marker that would be apparent to you if you didn't live in what one commnter already pointed out is a little world.
These comments inspired me to make a new post on my own blog. If it's too long, just dump it.
Awhile ago, I opined that if the world had attacked AIDS as aggressively as they're attacking bird flu, the disease would have been completely eradicated within a few years. But the homosexual lobby and their gullible liberal supporters didn't allow it. So now, we have a situation where 25% of male homosexuals in San Francisco have AIDS. In Baltimore, that figure shoots to 40%. And that doesn't count IV drug users and careless heterosexuals. AIDS is devastating Africa. And all because homosexuals want the world to believe that their orientation is somehow "normal." It isn't, and here is why.
Homosexuality is a mental illness. Period. It is morally reprehensible to allow people with destructive mental illnesses to harm themselves. We frown upon neurotic teens cutting themselves. We discourage eating disorders. We have laws against suicide. So, why do we allow people who get pleasure from deviant sexual practices to decimate their population? Long before the advent of AIDS, homosexuals were the walking wounded. Because of their perverse sexual practices, a large percentage of them were inflicted with gay bowel syndrome, a blanket term covering a large number of infections, illnesses, injuries, etc. Sex, when done properly and naturally, should not injure, infect, nor kill.
Homosexual apologists point to the fact that the American Psychiatric Association does not regard homosexuality as a mental illness. It is certainly true that the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. But this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. It was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist homosexual groups. You can find plenty of evidence of this by simply looking for it. You're on the Internet, use it.
Just the concept of a group of medical professionals voting away an affliction is bizarre in the extreme. Why doesn't the AMA simply decide that cancer is not a disease? Voilà! Cancer is just a natural way of dying. No need to spend billions trying to find a cure!
Homosexuality is natural? What is the most basic function of every living thing on the face of the earth? Reproduction. Homosexuals do not reproduce -- not if they are strictly practicing their odd method of sexual relations. If all homosexuals were confined to a remote island, they would die out in one generation. Could anything be more unnatural?
The defenders of homosexuality also say that what consenting adults do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Says who? I don't believe I've seen that "right" in any of our Founding Documents. And since when have homosexuals been content to confine their activities to the bedroom? Or does that "right" extend to libraries, public restrooms, public parks, etc.?
Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a mortal sin, resulting in the death of the eternal soul. But, this is an argument I never use. It's difficult enough to reason with unreasoning people without bringing God into the equation. When you do that, you suddenly have two arguments and have to convince a person that, say, abortion is murder, AND that God exists. He can simply dismiss both your arguments by saying he doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe in your god, as if he could fly by not believing in gravity. God doesn't depend on people's belief to exist. He isn't Tinkerbell.
Yet, as obvious as all these facts are, nothing is obvious to liberals. Homosexuals, who comprise only about two percent of our population, are getting more and more powerful, now teaching their agenda to public school children as young as five. That's what happens when you have liberals with no moral compass in charge of our educational system or able to influence our medical system or any other institution in our country.
Liberalism is deadly.
Lone Ranger,
That is a very reasoned argument. Well done.
Blessings,
Timothy
"Circuit City, Penny's Sears, Waldenbooks, K-Mart, Target, Officemax, etc. I could go on and on. So what part of what I said do I not have a clue?"
I haven't had time to digest all the comments here so forgive me if I'm covering something already covered.
Mark, I think you're missing the point here. Yes, there are penney's, sears, etc. What's missing is Huber's General Store, Smithtons Apothecary, Mom and Pop, USA.
The big chains have (Walmart at the top, but not the only one) have put the mom and pop stores out of business. Period.
Laissez faire says that this is okay. And this is one problem with capitalism. It's not okay. Maybe when I have more time, I'll post an essay on why it's not okay. Others have done it before me and doubtless done so better. Read up on it.
Lone Ranger said:
"Homosexuality is a mental illness."
And Dr. Ranger, you got your psychiatry/psychology degree from...where? Oh! You're not a licensed therapist, but you play one on the internet?
Yes, I know it's popular amongst some out there to say, despite what science and other experts tell us, we're right and they're wrong.
Never mind that they've studied the issue and you're pulling your opinion from...wherever you wish to pull it?
Sure, "experts" can be wrong. Sure, the majority can be wrong.
But isn't it exactly as likely or moreso that the minority can be wrong?
There can be elitism towards those who have less education than us and there can be elitism towards those with more.
Who was it that was talking about elitism earlier...?
I am so glad others chimed in. Straightening Mark out could be a full-time job.
Mark, you should try to say whatever it is yer trying to say in the following, again. 'Cause you apparently were so pissed off you couldn't think straight enough to express yourself clearly. That, or you're your just nucking futs, which, actually, is my suspicion. Drlobojo nor I said nothing even approaching it:
Mark said, "So ER, you agree with drlobojo's position that the majority of rural dwellers are unsophisticated, uneducated, Bible thumping, bigots, who are not permitted to believe that butt bunping is perversion. The flaw in your argument is that most rural peole are very sophisticated farmer millionaires with oodles of education, especially in the agriculture field. And they have the capacity to think for themselves rather than swallowing every Liberal politically correct Godless concept that the intellectual elites try to force down their throats. Like the ridiculous notion that homosexuality is any way normal."
DO WHAT??
Maybe you *should* quit blogging. Yer doing the equivalent of running a press here without a California job box or any idea how to use type.
Rich, there is no such thing as a gay animal, which proves right there that homosexuality is not normal. You cannot find proof of that assertion anywhere that can't be refuted.
Oh, I know that some scientists have managed to make male fruit flies make sexual advances towards other male fruit flies, in fact, I posted on that story. But what people tend to ignore in that story is that the flies were injected with hormones, thus they are only gay because they were unnaturally made that way by maunipulating science. They still have not discovered proof that it ever occurs naturally in nature.
And repeating the oft repeated assertion that people are born that way doesn't make it true. That is, and has always been just part of the rhetoric the the homosexual lobby has foisted on America. there is no poproof of that. However, there is proof that it isn't normal.
And if it's so normal, why do you worry that you might make the wrong impression?
ER, it's just like the Liberals to tell me I shouldn't blog. They don't like it when someone espouses views they don't agree with. But you know what? There are other ways to avoid having to read things that you disagree with. The easiest is...Don't read it if you don't like it.
And I don't care what any of you say. Homosexuality is NOT NORMAL! And you will never convince me it is.
Why hasn't anybody commented on the pictures?
Since you asked, I majored in psychology at Roosevelt University. And I have developed a talent for separating truth from nonsense from more than 33 years in journalism. But it is very predictable that you attacked me instead of anything I said. Where did you get your degree in debate?
Ever heard of the bonobo chimp, Mark? There are also several examples in the bird kingdom as well, but what do you care, right? Jus' libbel propaganda...
The 'wrong impression' thing was a lame joke. If ever there was a place where it's safe to be whatever one wishes, it's Portland. That was an attempt to reach you where you're at. Won't try that one again.
The Lone Ranger has, yet again, indulged us in his fantasy. He pointed out recently on one of our blogs that sex+rectum=death every time.
(Despite the practices of heterosexuals everywhere.)
I always like to hear what he has to say, but he's wrong there, too. And besides...Sexually transmitted diseases always have heteros as their largest numbers, in terms of infection, and AIDS is no exception.
Neither of you are using science. You're using your religious beliefs, and that's fine, but I just wish you'd be honest about it.
"there is no such thing as a gay animal, which proves right there that homosexuality is not normal."
This is pretty scientifically wrong, if you define homosexuality by behavior alone, which you all do.
Anecodotal:
I want someone to tell me why oversexed bulls hump ON one another (ON, because their aim is off); why my dogs both occasionally do same; why other animals demonstrate same-sex sex.
Nobody said it was "normal" -- at least, I never have -- if what you mean is it's what the majority does.
What I'm saying is 1., it's nobody's business but their own, in the name of freedom; 2., acceptance is not approval; and 3., it is no more or less a sin than any other sin because we're all sinners, period.
What betrays y'all is your self-righteousness and anger! It's fear. Since perfect love casts out fear, what does that say about yer faith?
Nothing. Which says a lot.
Jesus loves fags. How do y'all like them apples, you heartless, Godless, JESUSless ... pretenders.
I broached this topic in my Bible study if you wish to look.
Or, maybe we should pre-emptively deal with where this one always goes next.
Leviticus: if you really honestly took this particular chapter to heart more than the others, you would wish death to those who wore cotton/polyester blends. next?
Pedophilia: The major numbers of pedophiles are men who identify as straight. When you count Catholic priests into the equation, you have an entire occupation that may very well be made for men who, for religious reasons, never could admit that they are gay...Imagine if they'd been able to live their lives honestly. Probably wouldn't be so many messed up Catholics wandering around out there, but that's a different post.
Talking about it=approval: Not necessarily, as ER wisely notes. There's many different levels of acceptance. The thing is-humans are capable of thought and decision (or were "given free will by God")and just as hearing about genocide doesn't make me a mass murderer, hearing about how there are such things in this world as lesbians won't make my daughter one.
I dunno...What else? Fecal shame? Nope, already covered by th' Ranger...Mosaic law and tribal taboo? Naw, you'd call me a smartass for telling you that you have the same superstitions as a bronze age tribe...Nope. I'm done.
Blimey, looks like you gents(?) had a real heavy bitch-fight last night.
Reading through one counter-punch after another, I found that the words of Billy Joel's song 'Angry Young Man' were going around in my head - although for once I couldn't say whether it was Mark or ER I saw in the title role.
Let's hear it for free speech and remember that life goes on, no matter who is wrong or right.
Have a nice day all.
Yep, I was a little harsh.
Consider it an emotional payback for the kind of manure Mark has been dumping at my place lately and then mostly running.
Drive-by BS like this:
"Carter is a traitor ... He should be brought up on charges."
Guess what? This country deserves most of the "badmouthing" it gets from within and without. Impeaching Bush is the only way we can get even close to the hint of "moral high ground."
And this pearl of wisdom:
"America doesn't deserve liberals."
That's all. Just left at the front door like the emotional BS-filled IED that it was.
Impressive. Not.
Consider us even rhetorically. Again. For now. :-)
"Since you asked, I majored in psychology at Roosevelt University."
Well thanks for that bit of info. Then you are aware that the vast majority of experts no longer consider homosexuality a mental order.
Sure there may be a few folk who think homosexuality is a disorder, just as there are probably a few folk who think the earth is flat or that the trip to the moon was faked. But science, for the most part, has moved on.
As someone with some background in psychology, I'm guessing you know that. Further, you know there was no real reason for considering homosexuality a disorder in the past - just the fact that it was outside the norm.
Post a Comment